Securities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
692 federal appellate · 165 district · 104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,802 later decisions (66 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder (1976), Basic Inc. v. Levinson (1988)
692 federal appellate · 165 district · 104 state decisions — followed in 20 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedSecurities & Exchange Commission v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78O (§ 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 79 (Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935)
Relies on Wilko v. Swan · United States v. Philadelphia National Bank · Silver v. New York Stock Exchange · United States v. Mississippi Valley Generating Co.
Cited together with Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Superintendent of Insurance of State of New York v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,802 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Fraud, indeed, in the sense of a court of equity properly includes all acts, omissions and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.”
80 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client; (2) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client; (3) acting as principal for his own account, knowingly to sell any security to or purchase any security from a client, or acting as broker for a person other than such client, knowingly to effect any sale or purchase of any security for the account of such client, without disclosing to such client in writing before the completion of such transaction the capacity in which he is acting and obtaining the consent of the client to such transaction ....; (4) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.”
61 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate its remedial purposes.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.